Teaching Scientific Practices: Meeting the Challenge of Change

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 177-196

  Osborne, Jonathan ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Scientific practices; Teacher education; Teaching science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84898549396     PISSN: 1046560X     EISSN: 15731847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419.
2. Achieve. (2012). Next generation science standards. http://www. nextgenerationscience. org.
3. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333, 1096-1097.
4. Ames, G. J., & Murray, F. B. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict. Developmental Psychology, 18, 894-897.
5. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626-639.
6. Barton, M. L., Heidema, C., & Jordan, D. (2002). Teaching reading in mathematics and science. Educational leadership, 60(3), 24-28.
7. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
8. Bazerman, C. (1998). Emerging perspectives on the many dimensions of scientific dicourse. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 15-28). London: Routledge.
9. Biddulph, F., Symington, D., & Osborne, R. (1986). The place of children's questions in primary science education. Research in Science and Technological Education, 4, 77-88.
10. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind and experience in school. Washington: National Academy of Sciences.
12. Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
13. Chi, M., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
14. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. F. (2008). Students' questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39.
15. Chinn, A. C., & Malhotra, A. B. (2003). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools. A theoretical framework for evaluating Inquiry task. Science Education, 86.
16. Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (1993). The Golem: what everyone should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for english language arts and literacy in history/social studies and science. http://www. corestandards. org/.
18. Conant, J. (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental science (Vols. 1 and 2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Donovan, S., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn science in the classroom. Washington, DC: The National Acadamies Press.
20. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
21. Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (1995). The place of investigations in practical work in the UK National Curriculum for Science. International Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 137-147.
22. Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science and Education, 22, 2109-2139.
23. Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491-520.
24. Fisher, R. (1990). Teaching children to think. London: Simon and Shuster.
25. Ford, M. J. (2006). Grasp of Practice" as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science and Education, 17(2-3), 147-177.
26. Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
27. Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2011). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96(3), 369-391.
28. Geison, J. (1995). The private science of Louis Pasteur. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
29. Giere, R., Bickle, J., & Maudlin, R. F. (2006). Understanding scientific reasoning (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
30. Gilbert, J., & Boulter, C. (Eds.). (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
31. Gill, P. (1996). Focus: Can we count on biology? Journal of Biological Education, 30(3), 159-160.
32. Gott, R., & Murphy, P. (1987). Assessing investigation at ages 13 and 15: Assessment of Performance Unit Science Report for Teachers: 9. London: Department of Education and Science.
33. Gott, R., Duggan, S., & Roberts, R. (2008). Concepts of evidence. School of education: University of Durham.
34. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
35. Harré, R. (1984). The philosophies of science: An introductory survey (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026.
37. Hynd, C., & Alvermann, D. E. (1986). The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulty with science concepts. Journal of Reading, 29(5), 440-446.
38. Jetton, T. L., & Shanahan, C. H. (2012). Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies. New York: The Guilford Press.
39. Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169-204.
40. Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1995). Scientific thinking about scientific thinking. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60(4), 137-151.
41. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive science A multidisciplinary journal, 12(1), 1-48.
42. Klahr, D., Fay, A. L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 111-146.
43. Koeppen, K., Hartig, J., Klieme, E., & Leutner, D. (2008). Current issues in competence modeling and assessment. Journal of Psychology, 216(2), 61-73.
44. Kuhn, T. E. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45. Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., & Neubrand, M. (Eds.). (2013). Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers: Results from the COACTIV project. Dordrecht: Springer.
46. Latour, B. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Drawing things together. Knowledge and Society, 6, 1-40.
47. Latour, B. (1990). Visualisation and cognition: Drawing things together. Representation in Scientific Activity, 19-68.
48. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
51. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present and future. In S. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 831-879). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52. Lehrer, J. (2010). The truth wears off. New Yorker, 52-57.
53. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 635-679. doi: 10. 3102/00028312041003635.
54. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006a). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, (pp. 371-387). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006b). Scientific thinking and science literacy handbook of child psychology (pp. 153-196). New York: Wiley.
56. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701-724.
57. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.
58. Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
59. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education. (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht: Springer.
60. Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (1998). Reading science. London: Routledge.
61. Matthews, M. (1989). A role for history and philosophy in science teaching. Interchange, 20(2), 3-15.
62. McRobbie, C., & Thomas, G. (2001). They don't teach us to explain, they only tell us other people's explanations. Paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learning, Freiburg, Switzerland.
63. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Education Research Journal, 30(3), 359-377.
64. Millar, R., Lubben, F., Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigating in the school science laboratory: Conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influence on performance. Research Papers in Education, 9(2), 207-248.
65. National Academy of Science. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
66. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
67. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC.: Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
68. Nercessian, N. (2008). Model-based reasoning in scientific practice. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 57-79). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
69. Nersessian, N. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 133-153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
70. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
71. OECD. (2012). The PISA 2015 assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. http://www. oecd. org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2015draftframeworks. htm.
72. Orton, T., & Roper, T. (2000). Science and mathematics: A relationship in need of counselling? Studies in Science Education, 35(1), 123-153. doi: 10. 1080/03057260008560157.
73. Osborne, J. (2011). Science teaching methods: A rationale for practices. School Science Review, 93(343), 93-103.
74. Pearson, D., Moje, E. B., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459-463.
75. Penick, J. E., Crow, L. W., & Bonnsteter, R. J. (1996). Questions are the answers. Science Teacher, 63, 26-29.
76. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
77. Rogers, E. M. (1948). Science in general education. In E. J. McGrath (Ed.), Science in general education. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C, Brown Co.
78. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181-221.
79. Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
80. Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H. P., Cook-Smith, N., & Miller, J. L. (2013). The influence of teachers' knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1020-1049.
81. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484.
82. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students' transition from an engineering model to ascience model of experimentation. Journal of research in science teaching, 28(9), 859-882.
83. Schleppegrell, M., & Fang, Z. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
84. Schmidt, H. G. (1993). Foundations of problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17, 11-16.
85. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right... if they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461-494.
86. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.
87. Snow, C. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328, 450-452.
88. Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2004). Communication patterns of engineers. Hobeken, New York: Wiley.
89. The Economist. (2013). Trouble at the lab. The Economist. http://science. kqed. org/quest/audio/road-kill-or-road-crossing-california-slow-to-protect-wildlife/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=road-kill-or-road-crossing-california-slow-to-protect-wildlife. Retrieved October 21, 2013.
90. Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
91. van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-695.
92. Watson, R., Swain, J., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students' discussions in practical scientific enquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-46.
93. Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Sean Smith, P., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
94. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. F. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
95. Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2004). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
96. Ziman, J. (1979). Reliable knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
97. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.